at this point that we come to the dividing line which has been
drawn by different conceptions of catholicity. Dr Lindsay goes on to
argue that all insistence on the principle of historical continuity,
whether urged by members of the Anglican or the Roman Catholic Church,
as upholders of episcopacy, is a deliberate return to the principle of
Judaism, which declared that no one who was outside the circle of the
"circumcised," no matter how strong his faith nor how the fruits of the
Spirit were manifest in his life and deeds, could plead "the security of
the Divine Covenant." Without entering into controversy it must suffice
to point out that, from the point of view of all episcopal churches, the
ministry of the bishops succeeding the ministry of the apostles, however
it came to pass, was for fifteen centuries accepted as the pledge of
unity. This principle, however, of continuity in ministry, belongs to a
different department of Christian thought from the sacrament of baptism,
which really corresponds to the Jewish rites of admission to the
covenant. And it has been an established principle of the undivided
church since the 3rd century, the bishop of Rome in this case upholding
against St Cyprian the view which subsequent generations have ratified
as Catholic truth, that baptism by whomsoever administered is valid if
water is used with the right words. From this point, alas, divergence
begins.

(d) The fourth element is authority. Probably all Christians can agree
in the statement that the Christian democracy is also a theocracy, that
Christ is the source of all authority. There are three passages in the
Gospel which claim notice: (i.) the promise to St Peter (Matt. xvi.
18f), as spokesman for the apostles, of the key of the household of God,
of power to admit and exclude; (ii.) the promise (Matt. xviii. 15-20)
probably given to the Twelve, regarding offences against the peace of
the society, advocating exclusion only when brotherly appeals had
failed; (iii.) the commission of the whole _ecclesia_ or of the
Christian ministry (John xx. 22, 23). Again the root difference between
the Presbyterian and Episcopalian conceptions of the church comes to
light. Is the authority of the church manifested in the decisions which
a local church arrives at by a majority of votes, or in the decisions of
apostles and prophets after taking counsel, of the episcopate in later
times, ratified by common consent of Christendom? As has been well